Francis Orders McCarrick Investigation

After the publication of the accusations regarding the conduct of Archbishop Theodore Edgar McCarrick, the Holy Father Pope Francis, aware of and concerned by the confusion that these accusations are causing in the conscience of the faithful, has established that the following be communicated:

In September 2017, the Archdiocese of New York notified the Holy See that a man had accused former Cardinal McCarrick of having abused him in the 1970s. The Holy Father ordered a thorough preliminary investigation into this, which was carried out by the Archdiocese of New York, at the conclusion of which the relative documentation was forwarded to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith. In the meantime, because grave indications emerged during the course of the investigation, the Holy Father accepted the resignation of Archbishop McCarrick from the College of Cardinals, prohibiting him by order from exercising public ministry, and obliging him to lead a life of prayer and penance.

The Holy See will, in due course, make known the conclusions of the matter regarding Archbishop McCarrick. Moreover, with reference to other accusations brought against Archbishop McCarrick, the Holy Father has decided that information gathered during the preliminary investigation be combined with a further thorough study of the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick, in order to ascertain all the relevant facts, to place them in their historical context and to evaluate them objectively.

The Holy See is conscious that, from the examination of the facts and of the circumstances, it may emerge that choices were taken that would not be consonant with a contemporary approach to such issues. However, as Pope Francis has said: “We will follow the path of truth wherever it may lead” (Philadelphia, 27 September 2015). Both abuse and its cover-up can no longerbe tolerated and a different treatment for Bishops who have committed or covered up abuse, in fact represents a form of clericalism that is no longer acceptable.

The Holy Father Pope Francis renews his pressing invitation to unite forces to fight against the grave scourge of abuse within and beyond the Church, and to prevent such crimes from being committed in the future to the harm of the most innocent and most vulnerable in society. As previously made known, the Holy Father has convened a meeting of the Presidents of the Bishops’ Conferences from around the world for next February, while the words of his recent Letter to the People of God still resonate: “The only way that we have to respond to this evil that has darkened so many lives is to experience it as a task regarding all of us as the People of God. This awareness of being part of a people and a shared history will enable us to acknowledge our past sins and mistakes with a penitential openness that can allow us to be renewed from within” (20 August 2018).

This is tentatively good news. Who will lead the investigation? Will the laity have any part in it? What steps will Francis take to ensure the independence of the investigators — that is, to give credible assurances that this is a real investigation, and not a whitewash?

This is critically important. The McCarrick case implicates many powerful people in the Vatican. Archbishop Viganò’s testimonies give details, but you don’t have to accept everything Viganò says as established fact to understand that a man like McCarrick needed help to reach the summit of the Church. In the first Viganò statement, the former papal nuncio named names. These are people who are still in power in the Vatican — and they include Pope Francis himself.

This investigation ordered by Francis will be a good thing if it is independent and credible. Otherwise, it will be nothing more than an elaborate stunt designed to protect the guilty. Everything depends on who will lead this investigation, and the liberties they will have to examine the records and publish what they find, without fear or favor. Everything depends on transparency and the independence of the investigators. If there are no laity of unimpeachable moral character involved at the highest levels of this investigation, it will not only fail to settle the McCarrick issues, but will make things worse, because it will be rightly seen as a cynical PR move.

We can hope for the best, I suppose, but I wonder if the end result isn’t strongly hinted at in the statement (emphasis added):

“The Holy See is conscious that, from the examination of the facts and of the circumstances, it may emerge that choices were taken that would not be consonant with a contemporary approach to such issues. However, as Pope Francis has said: “We will follow the path of truth wherever it may lead” (Philadelphia, 27 September 2015). Both abuse and its cover-up can no longerbe tolerated and a different treatment for Bishops who have committed or covered up abuse, in fact represents a form of clericalism that is no longer acceptable.”

You see, the problem isn’t that anybody did anything wrong, it’s just that our standards have changed.

MORE FROM THIS AUTHOR

Hide 24 comments

24 Responses to Francis Orders McCarrick Investigation

Given recent revelations that conservatives care passionately about due process for the accused (so hard to describe how revelatory given our criminal justice system and foreign policy), I eagerly await for conservatives to leap forward with the same passion to defend due process for Catholic priests accused of sexual misconduct.

If you fail to see the parallels, then check your partisan and tribal loyalties.

Re: “The Holy Father Pope Francis renews his pressing invitation to unite forces to fight against the grave scourge of abuse within and beyond the Church, and to prevent such crimes from being committed in the future to the harm of the most innocent and most vulnerable in society.”

A major point is that the Vatican appears to be consciously fencing off the sexual abuse problem from the Lavender Mafia problem. I.e., exposing child abusers is a no-brainer. Exposing a culture of clerical material corruption suffused with homosexual activity – not so much.

So in the context of then Cardinal McCarrick’s “encore” as a diplomatic whirling dervish after it was known that payouts were made to victims of his abuse, who paid for his foreign junkets? Who signed off on McCarrick’s cushy digs at… Well let the National Catholic Register describe the machinations of McCarrick’s housing:

The point is that ex-Cardinal McCarrick was provided more elaborate personal accommodations than he was entitled to and an expansive budget to travel after his malignant sexual activity became known. Who signed off on the travel? wrote the checks and why? Any investigation that does not include that aspect of the sordid McCarrick saga will be woefully incomplete.

A minor point related to Hugh Hewitt is that Cardinal Wuerl did not participate in the highly visible Red Mass for the Supreme Court on Sep 30th. Which indicates that he is as good as gone.

Sure, reference to “a further thorough study of the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See” suggests that not just McCarrick’s sordid past, but the documents Archbishop Viganò cites as evidence will also be part of the investigation. But I’ve seen enough that I have, sad to say, lost trust in Francis. The investigation will almost certainly be a carefully managed inside job, the documents that might implicate Team Francis will not be made public, and the whole thing will be used as a way of later claiming: “What? We did a thorough investigation on that.”

One of the ways this will be managed is to focus especially on McCarrick’s past, on the “failures” and “need to do better”, while downplaying the issues that “dog” (to quote one of the Pope’s hardly veiled allusions) Viganò has raised.

Meanwhile Team Francis with its youthful verve (TM) has rigged the current Synod on Youth so as to conclude that our Church needs to “get more with the times” by “listening to our youngers and betters”. That’s not a direct quote, but pretty much the upshot. Sad.

[I’ve posted before, but will again. Our petition on this synod’s barely Catholic working document. For Catholics who’ve had enough:

The AP tweet says McCarrick slept with priests and seminarians. How about that he is alleged to have sexually harassed and molested priests and seminarians, molested a minor, and broke his vows of celibacy by engaging in homosexual acts with seminarians and priests.

Both abuse and its cover-up can no longer be tolerated and a different treatment for Bishops who have committed or covered up abuse, in fact represents a form of clericalism that is no longer acceptable.

Hey, wait a minute. When, exactly should abuse and cover-up have been “tolerated?” We all know that it was, so I suppose we should take this statement for what it might be worth.

Then we have a statement that in some former time (like, last week) giving Bishops a free pass on this kind of behavior was “acceptable.” Acceptable to whom? To the Bishops and the Pope of course, but who else? Lay Catholics? I think not.

I am hoping that this language shows a genuine change of heart (however unlikely that may be) and not just more clerical bureaucratic public-relations bs. We will know when there is action. I’m tired of listening to these guys talk.

I’m with Hewitt. What about Nighty Night, who HAD to know about Uncle Ted? Why doesn’t he just resign off his own bat? And No Apostrophe O Malley’s bureaucratic malfeasance. No investigation needed to uncover that. They both should resign from pure shame.

“The Holy See is conscious that, from the examination of the facts and of the circumstances, it may emerge that choices were taken that would not be consonant with a contemporary approach to such issues.”

I mean, I get this, I suppose. McCarrick was hardly the first cardinal to engage in tsame-six whoopee. But doesn’t it seem, you know, off? And while nothing would please me more than to see JPII get the posthumous comeuppance he so richly deserves, that seems to me to be where this remark is headed, and could presage a dodge.

“If there are no laity of unimpeachable moral character involved at the highest levels of this investigation, it will not only fail to settle the McCarrick issues, but will make things worse, because it will be rightly seen as a cynical PR move.”

There is no one of unimpeachable moral character so that puts them in a sort of bind.

PF has damaged the Church by his unnecessary delay, which in the end gained him nothing. Instead, it has set off an earthquake and the Church and the hierarchy will never be the same. That’s both good and bad but PF shares none of the credit for any of the good that comes out of it.

Yawn. Even if McCarrick is told he is a naughty, naughty boy as a result of this charade, does anyone really think that anything will change, that anyone besides McCarrick will be called out? In this chess move, the queen is sacrificing the bishop, and the opponent is all pawns. (Mammon is king.) People may not genuflect and kiss his, um, ring anymore, but he will be just fine with his octogenarian self. Like someone else here said, chickens don’t vote for McNuggets. Sociopaths don’t suddenly become honorable people.

“In an Oct. 6 statement, the Vatican said that Pope Francis has decided to combine the information from that investigation “with a further thorough study of the entire documentation present in the Archives of the Dicasteries and Offices of the Holy See regarding the former Cardinal McCarrick, in order to ascertain all the relevant facts, to place them in their historical context and to evaluate them objectively.””

There seems to be no promise that the results of this investigation will ever be made public, much less that any independent investigators,(still less Frank Keating!!) will be invited to take part. The great line from “There’s something about Mary” springs to mind: “I may have been blowing some smoke up your ass”.

All this means is that Wuerl got the documents from the nuncio in Washington DC, and has delivered them to the Vatican for destruction. At the same time, the documents that Vigano said were at the Congregation for Bishops and other places in the Vatican have been destroyed now. That is why it took so long for the Vatican to announce this – they had to be absolutely sure that they had found and destroyed all the relevant documents in the Vatican. It takes time to scrub an archive, to make sure you have everything.

All this means is that the Vatican is now ready to run a fake investigation. Their past behavior indicates guilt and deception. There is no reason to trust them

Yes, a credible laity is a MUST. But the McCarrick problem is not just minor’s abuse…is cover-up and acceptance of immoral behavior by clerics. San Diego Bishop McElroy, appointed by Francis, who is much in line with McCarrick philosophy, is fighting back against any reform/changes other than “minors abuse”. Consenting clerics sexual immorality? Not a problem for him. Homosexuality inside the church? not a problem, it is “clericalism”. It is pretty much like liberals in politics… they have no clue how angry the people of faith are, and the changes they are demanding. It is up to us and the honest media to keep their feet to the fire. Corruption and injustice is deep. http://www.renewamerica.com/columns/abbott/181004

I had exactly the same reaction as the reader you quoted. The Vatican is already implying that the wrongdoing they will uncover will be declared wrong only by the standards of today,but excused by the supposed standards of yesterday. (As if condoning the repeated abuse of children and young men was ever considered morally acceptable.)

And they also trotted out the tired platitudes about how the members of the Church are all in this together, meaning, of course, that no one can really be singled out for blame.

I believe that the Vatican realized it can’t duck this issue anymore, so it’s new strategy is to “investigate” and issue a report that it can then declare to be the last word. Anyone who criticizes the report or continues to raise questions will be declared a malcontent, or worse yet, doing the work of “the Evil One” -a tactic that Francis likes to employ.

LOL. It is no longer acceptable to trade envelopes of cash and BJs for little red hats. Good to know. Lets hope the Secretary of State gets the memo. Now on to important things like climate change and making the liturgy totally rad for the young people.

“The Holy See is conscious that, from the examination of the facts and of the circumstances, it may emerge that choices were taken that would not be consonant with a contemporary approach to such issues. However, as Pope Francis has said: “We will follow the path of truth wherever it may lead” (Philadelphia, 27 September 2015). Both abuse and its cover-up can no longer be tolerated and a different treatment for Bishops who have committed or covered up abuse, in fact represents a form of clericalism that is no longer acceptable.”

You see, the problem isn’t that anybody did anything wrong, it’s just that our standards have changed.

Standards change all the time. And in this case, they certainly have. Twenty years ago, the idea that a Catholic priest would abuse children in his care was considered a vile slander, one that brought outrage upon anyone who suggested such a thing. (Although it was, even then, a common topic of dirty jokes).

Now, it’s accepted that priests can and do such things, and that bishops and cardinals have long covered it up. (But other powerful structures still seem to be able to mount the “how dare you!!!” defense when one of their own are accused of similar acts). Of course, priestly pederasty was never acceptable in the sense that it could be carried out in the open; but the idea that covering up for this is not an acceptable way of protecting the reputation of the Church is starting to sink in.

The concern that your correspondent seems to be raising is, how retrospective and retroactive will any housecleaning be? If a Bishop was found to have covered up something fifteen years ago, but “got the message” after the Spotlight investigation, for instance, should he be cashiered?

Were Francis to e.g. announce a zero-tolerance policy going forward, but essentially forgive anyone (at least as far as canonical discipline goes) for prior acts, I’m sure that would piss off a lot of the faithful, and understandably so. Lots of people (and in all political groups within the Church, this is not just about traddies vs liberals or the “lavender mafia”) are outraged by the gross breach of trust, and want to see any evil-doer (whether an abuser themselves, or one who covered it up) punished, no matter how long ago.

OTOH, many people who cry out for this sort of vengeance, instead plead for mercy and forgiveness when it’s the other side yelling j’accuse! and waving the bloody shirt, and the past sins of their own tribe being denounced and their own heroes being re-cast as villains.